or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple's 2012 iMac refresh won't have Retina display
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple's 2012 iMac refresh won't have Retina display - Page 2

post #41 of 95

I don't think they will use SATA SSDs, they seem to be moving more towards PCIe. With the rate that SSDs are speeding up, this is smarter than waiting for each new iteration of SATA. The top of the line SSDs (e.g. Revo) have always used PCIe.

post #42 of 95
"The flexibility offered by Apple’s handling of the Retina Display in OS X is unparalleled. What applications like Aperture, iPhoto, iMovie and Final Cut HD offer, is unbridled resolution independence. What Apple has done here is so much more difficult than what it pulled off in iOS with the Retina Display. It will take time for third party application developers to get on board, but with the power of the Mac app store and Apple’s growing install base of Mac users I suspect we will see incredibly quick adoption of support for the MacBook Pro’s Retina Display."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/


I can't wait until this gets to all Macs. Hopefully AnandTech's article will help some realize just what a technical feat this was on from a HW and SW level to pull off.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pik80 View Post

I don't see why it has to be 27". I still use a 20" monitor and I couldn't imagine what I would do with anything bigger. I just care about increasing the screen resolution; the size of the screen doesn't have to be any bigger.

 

I love my 27". If you'd own one, it would be very hard to go back to 21" or even 24".

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply

Mac IIcx, Mac Quadra 800, Mac Performa 5200, Power Mac 8600, LaserWriter, iPhone 3G, iPad 3G, iPhone 4S | MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iPad 3 LTE

Reply
post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't think they will use SATA SSDs, they seem to be moving more towards PCIe. With the rate that SSDs are speeding up, this is smarter than waiting for each new iteration of SATA. The top of the line SSDs (e.g. Revo) have always used PCIe.

Are you talking about the large PCIe SSD cards for servers and workstations?

The MBA and even netbooks before it use the mPCIe connector but it's still only connecting to the SATA host controller. It's electrically compatible with mPCIe but the signaling is in no compatible.

It's possible Apple could use an on-board SATA host controller or use a combined PCIe/SATA routing chip in their system so that a standard PCIe slot can be used but I wouldn't expect this to be used at all for the iMac.

I hope Apple continues to use a standard SATA3.0 controller and 2.5" drive (as well as a 3.5" SATA3.0 drive) but there does seem to be some great cost savings with eschewing the casing and using your custom (read: not proprietary) SSD design. The big thing I want and could make me not buy the RiMac is if they don't offer a 3.5" drive option. I know an external TB drive would be sufficient but I'd rather have it internal.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

good luck with that less heat thing, apple is going for slimmer they don't give a crap about less heat apparently, look at the thermals of the new retina pro, gets warm even on light usage...

Vastly Improved Thermals

• http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/12

Care to defend your ignorant, trollish position against Anand's thorough review of the RMBP.


I thought it was obvious but I've been saying for years now that the removal of the ODD would allow engineers to 1) design a system that didn't revolve the placement of the large drive that requires placement at an edge, and 2) the ability to design the logic board in a more rectangular than square shape which allows for A) more spacing between the CPU and GPU, and being able to place them closer in ways that facilitate better cooling. Add to to the assumed fact that Ivy Bridge's 22nm lithography would be appearing this year and the only position one could reasonably take is that it would run cooler.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 95
I can hold purchase - not that I have enough money today or in 6 months anyway but 2013? Oh yeah..
post #47 of 95

Oops, maybe I should have put the post I made in another thread here.  I don't believe the iMac will have a retina display for like the next year or so.  The reason is that the desktop pictures in Mountain Lion only go to 3,200 x 2,000.  Seeing as Apple went to that dimension in Lion & that was long before the MacBook Pro with Retina Display it doesn't make sense that Apple isn't similarly planning ahead if they indeed have the intention of releasing an iMac with retina display soon.

You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #48 of 95
So yeah, the 15" MBP has a 2880x1800 (220ppi) screen and is roughly 2x the pixels from there vinous model. That's great, however, the previous MBP screen had about 30% fewer pixels than the competition...it had 1440x900 (108ppi). . My 2011 15" work Dell has a screen that's "HD", or industry standard at this point is 1920x1080 (141ppi ). So really the increase was more like 1.56x pixel increase compared to the competition, which is impressive regardless. I was always pretty shocked at how low the pixel density was on the previous MacBooks were compared to the competition. So it's really all relative marketing strategy here. Now i might also mention there was a hi resolution option to the previous 15" MBP of 1680x1050 (127ppi), which in essence would only have garnered a 173% increase in pixel density.

the fact that people here keep saying that each retina device gets at least a 2x pixel density increase is fine, but it is relative. The iPhone for instance had a very low pixel density screen as well. So did the iPad. That's how they kept costs down, but they were pretty passable at best at launch.

Additionally, has anyone also noticed that the pixel density of these "retina" devices has decreased as the screen size increased? That's not a coincidence. It's a direct ratio between the pixel density vs. the viewing distance from the screen. So I highly doubt the iMac with retina display will have the same 2x PPI increase, like the iPad or the iPhone.

Doing some very rough math, from the iPhone to the retina MBP, the pixel density seems to go down by a factor of 1.2 as the screen size increases. So based on that rough number, I'd assume the pixel density on a "retina" 21.5" iMac would go up to 3447x1940 (184ppi), and the 27" would have a res of 3576x2012 (152ppi). I'm not sure what the ratio that Apple uses but this constant +\-120% decrease as the screen increases seens to stay consistant, give or take a few %points. Even though the increase in screen size is not constant.

So that's my take, should the iMacs get the retina treatment. Now I too hope the MBA is next for the retina treatment, but I highly doubt it since it appears that battery life will compromise the form actor, which is tolerable since those screens already have a better screen res compared to the current MBP 13". But the pros lower res has the advantage of better quality images for photographers and graphic artists, so I guess even Apple compromises in places as well.
post #49 of 95

!

post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

In your 1,500 posts here, I have yet to read a single post of yours where you mention a single positive thing about Apple or its products. You have such vitriolic hatred and viciousness towards everything the company does, to the extent of making such an effort into twisting positives into negatives, like thinness. I've read quite a few reviews on the MBP, and not a single one mentioned that heat was an issue. My question is why the hell are you here, if you despise Apple so much? I've seen you go on frothing, rambling, hate-filled rampages on even the tiniest, most insignificant stories, and not once have I read a word of positivity from you towards Apple. Theres a million other options, but instead you choose to troll here and somehow you get away with it, maybe because of your username. Apple isn't making computers with matte screens, get the **** over yourself and your petty little vendetta. To you, every single thing Apple does is a sham and every single product a scam. You manage to shit up every thread I've seen. You must lead an incredibly unhappy life to insist on chronically posting on a fansite for a company you despise. 

I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English :) 

post #51 of 95

The one thing I'm waiting for till I replace my iMac.

post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

So yeah, the 15" MBP has a 2880x1800 (220ppi) screen and is roughly 2x the pixels from there vinous model. That's great, however, the previous MBP screen had about 30% fewer pixels than the competition...it had 1440x900 (108ppi). . My 2011 15" work Dell has a screen that's "HD", or industry standard at this point is 1920x1080 (141ppi ). So really the increase was more like 1.56x pixel increase compared to the competition...

1) The entire premise of your post is off. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the number of pixels. Remember that resolution is a measurement along two axes. Your calculations are so far off that even the iPad is a 1.52x pixel increase over 1080p. The RMBP is a 2.5x pixel increase over 1080p. That's 5,184,000px v. 2,073,600px.


2) There is a reason why PPI has been stagnant for a very, very long time on PCs even as GPU performance has followed Moore's Law. Without an OS that can handle the scaling of elements well going to a higher PPI just doesn't look good. Apple could have gone from the 110 PPI average to 140 PPI of your 15" Dell but note that Dell et al. only used that because 1080p was popular due to HDTV interest.

One way you can tell people are suckling the teat of HDTV marketing in when in year's past they complained about the iMac and MBA having 1920x1200 and 1366x768 resolutions, respectively, instead of Apple going with 1080p and 720p resolutions. Pretty silly, eh? h

Apple has had their HiRes displays for a long time but the elements were too small to be useful to many which is why they never caught on. I seem to recall Apple first saying RI would appear with 10.4 Tiger but that was silently and quickly removed from subsequent betas. RI just isn't feasible for the resolutions we're talking about; a hybrid solution was needed and that is what Apple has done with these displays. It's not just using an exceptionally better display but a shitload of work with the OS to get it to work right. Even then it'll be some time before most apps are updated to take full advantage.

The result isn't making the elements on the display smaller but to make the user experience better by making the pixels smaller but keeping the elements the same. It's a good thing!


PS: Your rough math for the iMac I can't even figure out how you can double an integer value and end up with an odd number.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English 1smile.gif 
Perhaps when your usernames keep getting banned you run out of ideas.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #53 of 95

I still say that the reason; no new iMacs, is because they're still waiting until they're ready to release them as the re-imagined iMac (so called) "iTV" The next step for the iMac.

post #54 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar View Post

I've been thinking the same for quite some time. He sounds like a typical Samsung-payrolled troll to me—pansy-assed Username and all... I mean.... "Myapplelove"?! Pfff, c'mon dude, you can be less obvious than that - that name just reeks of K-pop boy band English 1smile.gif 
lol, you gotta love paranoids! Chek under your rug mate, there might be a samsung hologram there about to steal your mac!
post #55 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't think they will use SATA SSDs, they seem to be moving more towards PCIe. With the rate that SSDs are speeding up, this is smarter than waiting for each new iteration of SATA. The top of the line SSDs (e.g. Revo) have always used PCIe.

Yeah well, but apple's flash isn't revo quality, it's not even flagship ocz quality, let alone intel quality.
Correct me if I am wrong but isnt something like 95% of current ssds as well as the ones in the two year pipeline perfectly fine and nowhere near bottlenecking with sata 3?
What's apple trying to do, future proof their devices via whatever on board proprietory connector they use so mac users won't be able to upgrade their machines in say 3 years with a much cheaper, larger, quicker and robust sata ssd and they will instead have to look to the small expensive market of proprietory apple compatible flash storage (some of dubious quality) where they might go eff it, it's not worth upgrading anyway at this price, might as well...buy a new mac (checkmate apple 1wink.gif ).

Cause this sounds like why they use firmware temperature sensors on the hard drives on the imac, that if you try to put another hard drive in your fans spin out of control. So you only buy the hard drive from apple and you cannot extend the lifecycle of your machine with a new drive after a while...

And there's still no succesful work around to that other via some half arsed software measures that might or might not work.
post #56 of 95

I love my late 2009 27" iMac.  I see no need for upgrading (yet).

However....

Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold.  I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.

post #57 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I love my late 2009 27" iMac.  I see no need for upgrading (yet).

However....

Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold.  I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.


Why would the thickness matter in the imac? This is a serious question. What would you gain from it? You might lose a 1/4 of stand and the computer would run hotter. I'd rather see them improve the cooling including cooling related to the lcd panel. Apple displays in the past have shown issues that aren't common among other displays using similar panels. Why must everything look anorexic? I question why anyone in their right mind would consider this a buying factor in a machine that is not typically transported and viewed dead on.

post #58 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) The entire premise of your post is off. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the number of pixels. Remember that resolution is a measurement along two axes. Your calculations are so far off that even the iPad is a 1.52x pixel increase over 1080p. The RMBP is a 2.5x pixel increase over 1080p. That's 5,184,000px v. 2,073,600px.
2) There is a reason why PPI has been stagnant for a very, very long time on PCs even as GPU performance has followed Moore's Law. Without an OS that can handle the scaling of elements well going to a higher PPI just doesn't look good. Apple could have gone from the 110 PPI average to 140 PPI of your 15" Dell but note that Dell et al. only used that because 1080p was popular due to HDTV interest.
One way you can tell people are suckling the teat of HDTV marketing in when in year's past they complained about the iMac and MBA having 1920x1200 and 1366x768 resolutions, respectively, instead of Apple going with 1080p and 720p resolutions. Pretty silly, eh? h
Apple has had their HiRes displays for a long time but the elements were too small to be useful to many which is why they never caught on. I seem to recall Apple first saying RI would appear with 10.4 Tiger but that was silently and quickly removed from subsequent betas. RI just isn't feasible for the resolutions we're talking about; a hybrid solution was needed and that is what Apple has done with these displays. It's not just using an exceptionally better display but a shitload of work with the OS to get it to work right. Even then it'll be some time before most apps are updated to take full advantage.
The result isn't making the elements on the display smaller but to make the user experience better by making the pixels smaller but keeping the elements the same. It's a good thing!
PS: Your rough math for the iMac I can't even figure out how you can double an integer value and end up with an odd number.
Perhaps when your usernames keep getting banned you run out of ideas.

Im not really sure what youre inferring with banned usernames...but For your info, I've never been baned, just a quick glance at my "joined" date would kind of hint at that. but I think yours has several times 1wink.gif But I guess that's hard to do when you post at the rate you do, things just kind of slip...averaging 23 post per day. Wow, that's impressive, especially if you have a full time job.

I think you misunderstood my math and verbage. When I refer to doubling the pixel density, I'm referring to ppi. When I say the pixels doubled, I meant the density, not the actual number or pixel area L x W. The iPhone went from 163ppi, to 326ppi. That's double the density. Of course the number of actual pixels quadrupled; i wasnt citing that number. Without posting a scan of my math calcs, it's kind of pointless to try to explain. But, It's pretty simple high school algebra mixed with a little geometry. First, ppi can quickly be calc'd by dividing the hypotenuse pixels (using pythagarean equation) by the diagonal screen size. [=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density][/]Then, I looked at the % increase between ppi of the iPhone to iPad, then iPad to MBPr. Using simple algebraic proportion equations, with quick rounding, was how I maded the iMac calcs:

MBPr: 220ppi / 120% = 183 1/3 ppi, which could be 21.5" iMac. 183 * 21.5 = 3941 2/3 pixels. Doing a proportional ratio you get a screen with 3435.3 (3435) x 1932.53 (1933)! I might have rounded differently in the last post. Like I said, it's a bit rough, there might be a slight rounding error.

Now I wasn't even looking at the OS X ramifications, that wasn't even my point, I was just looking at simply how the pixel density might change based on screen size, that's it. I think you were reading way too much not it. I was merely pointing out that retina ppi is more a factor of viewing distance to screen size. And using quick observations to demonstrate that point.
post #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I love my late 2009 27" iMac.  I see no need for upgrading (yet).


However....


Give me a 27" retina iMac with a 1TB SSD via MBA-style SSD cards, the thinness of the new rMBP and consider me sold.  I really think that will be Apple's 2013 or 2014 model.

I think it's completely possible but I agree with hmm about it not being reasonable or necessary. One thing hmm touched on was cooling. When you have a mobile CPU you don't need as much cooling but you also don't get as much performance and yet you are paying more for that mobile CPU. You can put less RAM in it, it would likely have to be soldered in, which may happen on Apple's AIOs but hopefully not for a very long time.

What i can see happening is the ODD being removed from the iMac in the next case change so it can be thinner. That along with the smaller lithography and some advanced cooling options should allow some case shrinkage — perhaps they'll even so some sort of vertical wedge design reminiscent of the MBA — but I think the internal PSU which is much, much more powerful than the MBP's external PSU, the much larger and more powerful speakers, larger CPU and GPU, fans, chips for this and that, and the HW needed to support the stand (which I assume will still be supported in the back center) probably means the thinness won't be too extreme except perhaps on the edges if they bevel the back casing more, which i think could be possible with their advancements in curved milling and the structural benefits of this process.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #60 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Im not really sure what youre inferring with banned usernames...but For your info, I've never been baned, just a quick glance at my "joined" date would kind of hint at that. but I think yours has several times 1wink.gif But I guess that's hard to do when you post at the rate you do, things just kind of slip...averaging 23 post per day. Wow, that's impressive, especially if you have a full time job.
1) That comment was directed at you as my post clearly shows I responded to radar's comment. So what exactly is hard to do?

2) I do work full time and can't post whilst working but I also read, comprehend, and think very fast which means I can reply very fast. My shortcoming on this forum is my proofreading. I tend to have more spelling errors than I'd like.
Quote:
I think you misunderstood my math and verbage. When I refer to doubling the pixel density, I'm referring to ppi. When I say the pixels doubled, I meant the density, not the actual number or pixel area L x W.

I'd say that is not the proper way to refer to that since the term is per inch and is well known to reference a square inch. It's the same as resolution which is why it's only been doubled whilst the pixel count as quadrupled.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #61 of 95
The distance to view a 27" monitor is much further away than a laptop and the need for retina over the current res is not that big of a deal.
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #62 of 95
It's odd how people complained Apple's products were woefully inferior because their resolutions were slightly below other vendors but as soon as Apple updates them with 2x resolutions so the scaling and elements can increase the user experience and ease for developers all of a sudden it's not needed and "just marketing." :sigh

Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman View Post

The distance to view a 27" monitor is much further away than a laptop and the need for retina over the current res is not that big of a deal.

Why is the need for Retina not that big of a deal? It's certainly closer to already being Retina but it's certainly not Retina at this time.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #63 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It's odd how people complained Apple's products were woefully inferior because their resolutions were slightly below other vendors but as soon as Apple updates them with 2x resolutions so the scaling and elements can increase the user experience and ease for developers all of a sudden it's not needed and "just marketing." :sigh
Why is the need for Retina not that big of a deal? It's certainly closer to already being Retina but it's certainly not Retina at this time.

I hadn't considered the ease for developers there. That's a good point. I didn't like nitpicking display resolutions either way. I mentioned 1920x1200 having been an available option in another thread as an example that PC makers did not just leave things at the same resolution numbers we had 5 years ago on notebooks. If you removed all of the branding and showed both the 1920x1200 and Apple's 1680x1050, I'm not convinced that users would immediately feel that one looks much blockier. Given a few minutes with each individually, it's unlikely that either would prove unusable relative to the other. It's difficult to make an objective comparison given the way the brain interprets visual media. As to the rMBP. It looks quite nice. I'm still not buying something that difficult to repair unless the reliability proves to be well above average. If that's the case I may look at the second generation later.

 

By the way, with product thickness, I've never been a fan of the thin as possible mentality. In the case of the mini, it becomes quite noisy under load. This isn't a common problem with stationary form factors. I see it as an unnecessary compromise in such a device.

post #64 of 95

I don't think there's any requirement that they do 4x - like I said, that's what they've done so far, but that was for hardware with much closer viewing distances (and the pixel density has been going down with each iteration). What they're doing on the Retina MBP isn't as simple as doubling everything - if that was all they were doing, there wouldn't be five options in the Displays prefpane.

 

What they're actually doing is drawing the display at twice the 'apparent' resolution (that is, on the lowest-res setting, they're drawing at 2048x1200; at the highest, 3840x2400) then scaling that down to 2880x1800. So, in theory, they could spec a 2880xWhatever display (or 3200xWhatever, to match the ML wallpapers) and offer the same sort of options in the prefpane - anything from an 'apparent' 1280x720 to 2560x1440 (rendered off-screen at 2560x1440 to 5120x2880) then scaled to the actual resolution of the screen to smooth everything out.

 

My ideal for a thinner, more-efficient iMac would combine 256-512GB of on-board flash storage with a 7200rpm 1TB 2.5" drive, but I don't know if Apple will go that route - I suspect they would prefer to be all-flash for internal storage, with Thunderbolt/USB3 for anybody that needs more than the internal. Eliminating the 3.5" internal drive would definitely allow them to go thinner on the case (something that eliminating the ODD really wouldn't do - those drives are already very thin) - switching to a 2.5" drive would allow the same packaging benefits, but who knows what direction they will decide (or have already decided) to go.

post #65 of 95
Yeah on board flash would be ideal, I really like to pay 3 times the price of storage to apple for no benefit whatsoever and not be able to upgrade my storage in the coming years with larger, better, faster and more robust (as well as much much cheaper) standard ssds. Boy how ideal this would be.

There's also the added benefit that one can never install hybrid hdd at a fraction of the price but with very comparable benefits to ssds...come to think of it and seeing how greedy and obese apple have become, there's no way they will release this with retina and standard sata 3...

And while they are at it they are at it they should do whatever they can to do away even with a 2.5" hard drive, because how can you fit one on a desktop without making it fat and ugly, and anyway it's very aesthetically pleasing to have of external storage attached to the back of your mac, it's also great for desk space, all that trouble to make this an all in one just to have a little turd sticking out at the back. Might as well get a tower and stick it under the table, a screen will be much thinner on its own... I have one in mind, a mac pro, it's overpriced, bulky, with no thunderbolt, not even USB 3, it carries last centuries design and two year old tech, it's for "fast thinkers" only though.
post #66 of 95
Isn't about time myapplelove be put out to pasteurize?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

My family was kidnapped and I'll never see them again unless I buy every single Apple product ever made, regardless of the intended audience of said device. I also refuse to educate myself about these computers that I'm forced to buy, thereby allowing myself to complain about them online.

Yep, quoting system works fine. I'm not sure how much longer we'll let you do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Isn't about time myapplelove be put out to pasteurize?

Wow, I wrote that second sentence above before even seeing your post. Great minds, as they say… lol.gif

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #68 of 95

be my guests and ban me if you want to, I won't be joining the praise apple for the sun coming up in the east every morning apple crowd any time soon, if I like something I ll say so, if I don't I ll say so. I can't be a good boy and say oh ios 6 sounds so exciting no live notifications on apps, no widgets, the lock screen still looks like a glorified watch, there's a facebook everywhere so I can always opt to have my privacy invaded. And btw if fast thinkers don't like to read me, they can put me on ignore, as I have with them for no other reason of course other than the fact that I can't think at such dizzying speeds. 

post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

be my guests and ban me if you want to, I won't be joining the praise apple for the sun coming up in the east every morning apple crowd any time soon, if I like something I ll say so, if I don't I ll say so. I can't be a good boy and say oh ios 6 sounds so exciting no live notifications on apps, no widgets, the lock screen still looks like a glorified watch, there's a facebook everywhere so I can always opt to have my privacy invaded.

You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.

Anyway, I buy CultofMac's thoughts on why pixel quadrupling isn't for what we should be aiming. Dunno if anyone else has read it.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.
Anyway, I buy CultofMac's thoughts on why pixel quadrupling isn't for what we should be aiming. Dunno if anyone else has read it.

I really do dislike the term "retina" in Apple marketing. That article was pretty cool. Apple's marketing (and really any product marketing as they've all been going this route) dumbs things down significantly. DPI isn't the greatest way to define it, and they aren't accounting for pixel pitch. Overall they're nice displays. That is what matters. I just find it annoying when everyone on these sites now believes they understand optics because Apple posted a simplified algebraic equation on the matter.

post #71 of 95

They will double the res on the iMac. Even though it's not needed to reach Steve's definition of Retina, if you look at the software APIs on the new MBP, everything is set up for 2x.

post #72 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I really do dislike the term "retina" in Apple marketing.

What don't you like about it. It's a huge step leap forward in consumer products and Apple has been far ahead of the pack here. This might hurt competitors who can't compete but it also pushes them to improve faster than they otherwise would have.

Anything that can help market something brilliant is a good for consumers. Just look at the what the iPhone did for the handset market. Remember how that market was "saturated" before the Apple jumped in?

There are plenty of brilliant innovations that have failed to become popular and thus benefit society because they were poorly marketed or something else had better marketing. Unfortunately the best doesn't win out but the Retina Display looks promising for us all.
Quote:
I just find it annoying when everyone on these sites now believes they understand optics because Apple posted a simplified algebraic equation on the matter.

First of all, Apple's equations is trigonometric and therefore quire complex for most readers compared to the simple, purely algebraic formula I've used on this forum many times. tan(a/2) = s/2d v. 3438 * (1/x) = n, where x can be either the PPI or the distance in inches from your face.

Secondly, you don't have to understand optics to be able to understand a threshold of discerning something or not discerning something. The argument in that article that because there are is a small percentage of the population that have good enough vision to technically be able to discern pixels from normal viewing distance means that it shouldn't use that marketing term is silly and pointless.

Again, it's a marketing term and it's breakthrough that benefits all users. I can't imagine and rational adult thinking that the colloquial desigantion of 20/20(6/6) vision to mean perfect vision actuall means better than 20/20 is imperfect or not possible. The same argument goes for the other half of the equation which is distance between the eye and the display. There are certainly common distances we hold certain devices but no one distance applies to all users or any single user at all times.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'd say that is not the proper way to refer to that since the term is per inch and is well known to reference a square inch. It's the same as resolution which is why it's only been doubled whilst the pixel count as quadrupled.

I think you're nit-picking. And resolution is NOT the sme as pixel density. One refers to a expression pertaining to the physical amount of pixels on the display, whereas th other is an expression of the an average number of pixels per unit of measure, in this case being the square inch. Dimension vs. area are two different things.
post #74 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I think you're nit-picking. And resolution is NOT the sme as pixel density. One refers to a expression pertaining to the physical amount of pixels on the display, whereas th other is an expression of the an average number of pixels per unit of measure, in this case being the square inch. Dimention vs. area are two different things.

You're nitpicking. I simply said the values are the same. 2x is 2x regardless if you're looking at resolution or PPI doubling as they are both using 2 axes for the measure. I never stated that PPI and resolution are defined the same.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #75 of 95

Ok so if no Retina- why must we have to wait to Oct/Nov for new innards?

Could a new body be forthcoming?

A matte screen option at last- finally? It's now been proven by Schiller's own words that a non-retina display has 75% more glare as he certified why all of us who held out against the iMac glossy glare monsters were right to begin with. In other words- Glare is an issue with the current screen. And the larger the display the more glare. Add to that the lack of positioning options with the current armature and it is worth waiting yet another year. 

post #76 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) The entire premise of your post is off. It's 2x the resolution which is 4x the number of pixels. Remember that resolution is a measurement along two axes. Your calculations are so far off that even the iPad is a 1.52x pixel increase over 1080p. The RMBP is a 2.5x pixel increase over 1080p. That's 5,184,000px v. 2,073,600px.

236ppi s 2x 163ppi, so the density doubled. Yes the actual number of pixels did only go up by 1.52x from HD. So what's your point? I was using my laptop's screen resolution and ppi for comparison, since he industry stand follows my machine over Apple's previous standard display resolution. I think we're both thinking on the same wavelengths, but from differing perspectives and levels of explanation. My angle is solid, And My math is on, minus rounding simplification. And I still don't understand how anything of what i've stated is "off". You might want to clarify what YOU thought the premise of my post was?

You might be inferring that I agree with using HDTV resolution as computer industry standard but I don't. I was merely pointing out that Apples standard laptop displays have been, for a while, lower resolution than industry standard. Yes maybe the rest of the industry has hopped on the HD marketing bus (or just trying to outdo Apple) but that isn't really the point of my original post.

Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to hop on HD band wagon. Historically, computer displays have always been much higher resolution. I think the computer industry's marketing was never really successful at illustrating that. And when the TV industry finally caught up, they sort of just converged the thinking to make it look like the 1080p 21" widescreen was improved from the 20" 1600x1200 standard aspect model, when in actuality they were nearly the same ppi.

My point was that I think it's unrealistic to simply assume Apple's desktops and larger-than-laptop displays will be 2x ppi. I was trying to illustrate this by showing how the ppi of Apple's retina devices has decreased as the screen size increased. So with the 21.5" iMac, it's unrealistic to assume a retina version would simply be 4x the pixels and 2x the pixel density (204ppi) of the previous version, Because that would be overkill when viewed at normal distances. Now I'm one who likes to lean close to my screen so maybe it would benefit me but not to the average person with average computer posture. And after doing a basic eye test on myself, I can say pretty confidently that my vision is better than 20/20 ( (probably closer to 20/10...meaning @ 20' away i can make out letters 10mm high) and after holding the iPhone about 8" from my eyes, I still could make out individual pixels.

Now this is all from the standpoint of visible acuity. Not what's technically feasible from a software development perspective or anything else. Maybe I wasn't clear about that.

I don't seem to be nit-picking anything, just clarifying since you didn't seem to understand my posts.
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Are you talking about the large PCIe SSD cards for servers and workstations?
That is where most cards go these days. The good news is that chipsets to make cheaper PCI-E SSDs are to become available this year. That would remove one obstacle to such cards.
Quote:

The MBA and even netbooks before it use the mPCIe connector but it's still only connecting to the SATA host controller. It's electrically compatible with mPCIe but the signaling is in no compatible.
I think you mean mechanically compatible.
Quote:
It's possible Apple could use an on-board SATA host controller or use a combined PCIe/SATA routing chip in their system so that a standard PCIe slot can be used but I wouldn't expect this to be used at all for the iMac.
I hope Apple continues to use a standard SATA3.0 controller and 2.5" drive (as well as a 3.5" SATA3.0 drive) but there does seem to be some great cost savings with eschewing the casing and using your custom (read: not proprietary) SSD design. The big thing I want and could make me not buy the RiMac is if they don't offer a 3.5" drive option. I know an external TB drive would be sufficient but I'd rather have it internal.
Well leave a slot for a conventional drive. Shipping iMacs with SSDs would be awesome though.

As to cost you eliminate a bunch of mechanical parts going the PCB route. Combine that with a PCI-Express interface and you minimize waste while upping performance.

As a side note, early last year the industry was apparently trying to standardize on PCB based storage modules. That is a card format that would effectively replaced the hard drive form factors. I'm surprised that I've seen nothing about this lately. This was supposedly an effort at something totally mew and NOT the mSATA effort. The industry could really use such a format so hopefully the effort wasn't abandoned.
post #78 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Ok so if no Retina- why must we have to wait to Oct/Nov for new innards?
Could a new body be forthcoming?
Good questions! Forcing people to wait until Oct/Nov would be rather anti consummer of Apple. Let's face it Ivy Bridge brings a lot to the table for iMac and even Mini users, and honestly I believe most potential buyers understand this. So I really suspect new models before then.

As to a new body that should have happened a long time ago. It didn't but really a case shouldn't hold up delivery of an iMac.
Quote:
A matte screen option at last- finally? It's now been proven by Schiller's own words that a non-retina display has 75% more glare as he certified why all of us who held out against the iMac glossy glare monsters were right to begin with. In other words- Glare is an issue with the current screen.
It is an issue with any screen including matte screens which do have glare and do wash out in strong light. What people fail to grasp is that matte screens have a significantly negative impact on image quality thus the preference for non matte screens.
Quote:
And the larger the display the more glare. Add to that the lack of positioning options with the current armature and it is worth waiting yet another year. 

Well if I buy anything right now I would likely be a Mini and then only an a nicely revved Mini. I would not buy nor recommend an iMac unless the case was addressed. IMac in its current form is just to compromising.
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


You know as well as we do that this isn't the point.
Anyway, I buy CultofMac's thoughts on why pixel quadrupling isn't for what we should be aiming. Dunno if anyone else has read it.

 

Don't be fooled by that article. It makes it's evaluations on the basis of science conducted in 1946, that calculated the limits of human vision to discriminate two separate points at around 0.3 Arc Minutes and appeals to some of Dr. Soneira claims, who made calculations with the assumption of 0.5 Arc Minutes. But that has proven to be wrong. See this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/retina_display_claims_upheld/

 

Here is the most important part, and the CultofMac calculations are plagued with the same fundamental problem as Dr. Soneira:

 

except written by: Bryan Jones, Neuroscientist

 

Dr. Soneira's claims are based upon a retinal calculation of .5 arcminutes which to my reading of the literature is too low. According to a relatively recent, but authoritative study of photoreceptor density in the human retina (Curcio, C.A., K.R. Sloan, R.E. Kalina and A.E. Hendrickson 1990 Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292:497-523.), peak cone density in the human averages 199,000 cones/mm2 with a range of 100,000 to 324,000. Dr. Curcio et. al. calculated 77 cycles/degree or .78 arcminutes/cycle of *retinal* resolution. However, this does not take into account the optics of the system which degrade image quality somewhat giving a commonly accepted resolution of 1 arcminute/cycle.

post #80 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98 View Post

Old inventory needs to be sold first?

Apple turns over their inventory so quickly, I don't think that's a problem. Being a just-in-time production system and having a one week turnover, they can plan the switch whenever they choose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

The 27 inch would only have to go up from the current 109 ppi to 122 ppi to be Retina and yes it is possible that such a display could be very possible. We haven't seen it perhaps because Apple, in typical fashion, secured all the resources and rights to the first units while they were still in R&D. So the announcement that such a display is exists will be when Apple announces the new iMac. 

it's also worth nothing that Arment believes, not that he has any sources. His beliefs could be very wrong

The numbers assume a certain distance. At 18-24", I often see the gaps between the pixels on desktop monitors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

@Slurpy, sadly someone quoted you and the ignore feature failed. You must be leading a very sad life indeed to have replaced religion with a half bitten apple on an aluminium casing and to view anyone not 100% aligned in their requests with apple with the hatred of a fundamentalist.

As opposed to your fundamentalist religion of getting in a dig against Apple in almost *every* post? There's a difference between participating and deliberately shitting all over the boards. Everybody here disagrees with Apple at some point in time.

I don't think there's a reason to fear losing to SSD sticks on iMacs. I think you're just looking for an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackie8k View Post

Just go for the Ivy Bridge desktop processors, decent graphics, and SATA III SSDs.

And USB 3. Or "Super Duper Speed" or whatever the F the USB consortium calls it.
Edited by JeffDM - 6/24/12 at 5:32am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple's 2012 iMac refresh won't have Retina display